Andhra Pradesh

Kurnool

CC/147/2009

K.Prasad, S/o K.Yellappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, M/s. Apron Auto - Opp.Party(s)

P.SivaSudarshan

05 Sep 2011

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/147/2009
 
1. K.Prasad, S/o K.Yellappa
H.No.41/444, Kothapeta, Kurnool-518002
Kurnool
Andhra Pradesh
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Branch Manager, M/s. Apron Auto
H.No.4-595-12B/3A, Old, New 4-2-35, Ahiya Complex, N.H.7, By Pass Road, Anantapur-515004
Anantapur
Andhra Pradesh
2. Proprietor, M/s. Apron Auto
D.No.23-A, Bellary Chowrastha, Kurnool-518004
Kurnool
Andhra Pradesh
3. Branch Manager, I.K.F. Finance Limited,
H.No.40/581a, 2nd Floor,S.V.Complex, Kurnool-518001
Kurnool
Andhra Pradesh
4. Director, I.K.F. Finance Limited,
D.No.40-1-144, 3rd Floor,Corporation Centre, M.G.Road, Vijayawada-10
Krishna
Andhra pradesh
5. The Regional Manager
GE Plaza, M/S HDFC Bank, 4thFloor,Lala Land Mark, M.G.Road, OPP.RanigunjBus Stop,Secunderabad-600003
Hyderabad
Andhra Prdesh
6. Regional Manager, Bajaj General Insurance Company Limited
GE Plaza, AirPort Road, Yerawada, PUNE-411006.
PUNE
Maharastra
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L. PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sri.M.Kirshna Reddy, M.Sc, M.Phil., MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.SundaraRamaiah, B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri.M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

And

Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

 

Monday the 5thday of September, 2011

C.C.No.147/2009

Between:

 

K.Prasad, S/o K.Yellappa,

H.No.41/444,  Kothapeta, Kurnool-518002.                     

 

    …Complainant

 

-Vs-

 

1. Branch Manager, M/s. Apron Auto,

   H.No.4-595-12B/3A, Old, New 4-2-35, Ahiya Complex, N.H.7, By Pass Road, Anantapur-515004.

 

2. Proprietor, M/s. Apron Auto,

   D.No.23-A, Bellary Chowrastha, Kurnool-518004.

 

3. Branch Manager, I.K.F. Finance Limited,

   H.No.40/581a, 2nd Floor,S.V.Complex, Kurnool-518001.

 

4. Director, I.K.F. Finance Limited,

   D.No.40-1-144, 3rd Floor,Corporation Centre, M.G.Road, Vijayawada-10.

 

5. The Regional Manager,

GE Plaza, M/S HDFC Bank, 4thFloor,Lala Land Mark, M.G.Road, OPP.RanigunjBus Stop,Secunderabad-600003.

 

6. Regional Manager, Bajaj General Insurance Company Limited,

   GE Plaza, AirPort Road, Yerawada,  PUNE-411006.                                                        ...Opposite ParTies

 

 

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.SivaSudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri B.Adinarayana Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and 2 and Sri M.SivajiRao, Advocate for opposite party No.3 and 4and Sri. A.SivaRamaiah Advocate for opposite party No.5 and Sri A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate for opposite party No.6 for upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

                   (As per Sri.T.SundaraRamaiah, President)

C.C. No.147/2009

 

1.     This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-

  1. To direct the opposite partiestoissue required documents with correct Engine Number without over witness;

                                OR

ToRefund the cost of the vehicle of Rs.86,111/-.

 

  1. To grant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards lively hood loss;
    •  
  2. To refund the amount of Rs.2,934/- collected from the complainant towards insurance;

 

  1. To grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony;

And

  1. To grant cost of the complaint;

 

  1. To grant any other reliefas theHonourableForum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.                                   

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the dealers of Bajaj three wheelers.  Opposite party No.3 is the branch officer of the opposite party No.4.  Opposite party No.5 is the bank and opposite party No.6 is the Insurance Company.  The complainant approached opposite party No.1 for purchase of three wheeler for Rs.86,111/-. On 13-11-2007 the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- to opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.1 assured to arrange financial assistance from opposite party No.3.  After the purchase the complainant came to know that opposite party No.5 is shown as financier of the vehicle.  On 19-12-2007 the complainant went to R.T.A. Office Kurnool for registration of the vehicle.  The R.T.A. Kurnool refused to register the vehicle on the ground that the engine number of the vehicle is shown as AEMBPH 49134 in the documents instead of 47984.  On the request of the complainant0opposite party No.1 addressed a letter to R.T.A. Kurnool stating that discrepancy occurred due to clerical mistake of his staff.  The complainant on 19-12-20007 informed opposite party No.6 that there is discrepancy in engine number in the insurance papers.  The complainant received the papers with corrected number from opposite party No.1 by DTDC courier.  The complainant again approached R.T.A. on 03-01-2008 for registration of the vehicle.  But the R.T.A. Kurnool has rejected the registration on the ground that the corrections are made in the documents.  The said fact was informed to the opposite parties and the vehicle was kept idle.   The complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 13-02-2008.  Opposite parties did not give any reply.  Opposite party No.3 seized the vehicle on 18-05-2009 as the complainant failed to pay the installments.  The complainant sustained loss due to negligence of the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint.

 

3.     Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant purchased the auto from opposite parties 1 and 2 on 13-11-2007 and paid down payment of Rs.21,111/- to opposite party No.1.  The complainant should have approached the R.T.A. for registration of the vehicle within one month from the date of the delivery of the vehicle i.e., 15-11-2007.  In the notice dated 13-02-2008 get issued by the complainant it was mentioned that the complainant went to R.T.A. Kurnool on 15-12-2007.  But in the complaint it is mentioned that the complainant went to R.T.A. Kurnool on 19-12-2007 for registration.  As there was mistake in the engine number of the auto opposite party No.1 rectified the mistake and sent information to R.T.A. Kurnool through its letter dated 17-12-2007.  The complainant filed this complaint with a malafied intention.  There is no documentary proof to show that the R.T.A. rejected the registration.  The complainant removed the meter and used the vehicle from 15-11-2007 till the date of surrender of the vehicle on 18-05-2001.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

      

        Opposite party No.3 filed counter and the same is adopted by the opposite party No.4.  It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable.  On 19-12-2007 the complainant entered into an agreement with opposite party No.3 and borrowed an amount of Rs.68,500/-. One Smt. Rajyalakshmi stood as guarantor.The complainant paid only first installment.  He failed to pay the remaining installments.  On the request of opposite party No.3the complainant voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to opposite party No.3 and gave a letter accordingly to opposite party No.4.  Opposite parties 3 and 4 are unnecessarily made as parties. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

        Opposite party No.5 filed counter stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  There is an agreement between opposite party and opposite party No.4.  In pursuance of the said agreement opposite party No.1 sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.68,500/- to the complainant on 19-11-2007.  The complainant is defaulter in payment of the installments.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.5.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

        Opposite party No.6 filed counter stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant approached for insurance coverage.  Opposite party No.6 agreed for it.  The opposite parties issued policy cover note in favour of the complainant on the same day.  The complainant requested to return the policy premium amount stating that the vehicle number is wrongly mentioned in the documents and the R.T.A. Authorities refused to the register the vehicle.  Immediately the policy cover note was cancelled and returned the premium amount to the complainant.  The opposite party No.1 is unnecessarily added.  The complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.

 

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A15 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B8 are marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite parties 1,3,4,5 and 6 are filed.  Third party affidavit of Sri P.Rasool is filed on behalf of opposite party No.6.

 

5.     The complainant and opposite parties 1,2,4,and 6 filed written arguments.

 

6.     The points that arise for consideration are:

 

  1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?

 

  1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

 

  1. To what relief?

 

7.      POINTS 1and  2:- Admittedlythe complainant purchased three wheelers Bajaj auto from opposite parties 1 and 2 for Rs.86,111/-. Ex.A4 is invoice dated 15-11-2007 issued by opposite parties 1 and 2.  Opposite parties 3 and 4 are the financiers, opposite party No.5 is the HDFC Bank.  The bank gave finance to the complainant for the purchase of the said vehicle through opposite parties 3 and 4.  Admittedly the complainant paid the first installment and failed to pay the remaining installments.  It is the case of the opposite parties 3 and 4 that on 18-05-2009 the complainant surrendered the vehicle as he was not in a position to pay the remaining installments.  Opposite party No.3 filed Ex.B8 surrender letter dated 18-05-2009.  In the said letter it is mentioned that the complainant on 18-05-2009 voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to opposite party No.3 as he failed to pay the installment.  The opposite party No.6 is the insurance company.   According to the complainant opposite party No.6 issued cover note.  It is the case of the opposite party No.6 that on the same day the complainant approached it and on the request of the complainant the cover note was cancelled and premium amount paid by the complainant was returned.  Opposite party No.6 filed third party affidavit stating that the policy cover note issued to the complainant was cancelled on the same day and premium amount was refunded to the complainant.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 3 to 6.

 

8.     It is the case of the complainant that in the relevant documents engine number of the vehicle purchased by him was noted as AEMBPH 49134 instead of 47984 and as a result the R.T.A. Authorities refused to register the vehicle.  It is admitted by opposite parties 1 and 2 that the clerk mistakenly noted the engine number of the vehicle purchased by the complainant as AEMBPH 49134 in the documents issued to the complainant.  It is the case of the complainant that on 19-12-2007 he approached the R.T.A. Kurnool and that the R.T.A. Kurnool refused to register the vehicle as engine number is wrongly mentioned as ACMBPH 49134.  Admittedly prior to the filling of the complaint the complainant got issued Ex.A13 notice to opposite parties 1 and 2 and others.  In the said notice Ex.A13 it is mentioned that on 15-12-2007 he visited the R.T.A. Kurnool for registration of the vehicle and that the R.T.A. Kurnool refused to register the vehicle as the engine number is wrongly mentioned as AEMBPH 49134 in the documents.   In the sworn affidavit of the complainant also it is mentioned that on 19-12-2007 he went to R.T.A. Kurnool and that R.T.A. Kurnool refusedto register the vehicle on the ground that engine number was wrongly noted in the documents as 49134.  The complainant is no certain on which day the R.T.A. Kurnool refused to register the vehicle.

 

9.     It is admitted by opposite party No.1 that in the sale certificate and invoice issued in favour of the complainant the engine number is mistakenly mentioned AEMBPH 49134 instead of AEMBPH 47984.  According to opposite parties 1 and 2 it was only a clerical mistake.  As seen from Ex.A9 it is very clear that the complainant obtained temporary registration certificate and it was valid up to 14-12-2007.  Ex.A10 is the Form – 20 Application for registration of a motor vehicle.  As seen from Ex.A10 it is very clear that the complainant paid the prescribed of Rs.400/- on 15-12-2007 for registration of the vehicle.  There is an endorsement on the first page of Ex.A10 that engine number of the vehicle was found as AEMBPH 47984.  From the evidence available on record it is very clear that the complainant could not get his vehicle purchased from opposite parties 1 and 2 registered within time as the engine number of the vehicle was wrongly mentioned as AEMBPH 49134 instead of 47984 in the relevant documents.  There was negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 in mentioning the engine number of the vehicle in Exs.A1 sale certificate and Ex.A4 invoice as AEMBPH 49134 instead of AEMBPH 47984.  There is evidence on record to show that the complainant voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to opposite party No.4 on 18-05-2009.  An account of the negligence on the party of opposite parties 1 and 2 the complainant must have suffered mentally.   No deficiency of service is found on the part of the opposite parties 3 to 6.  There was negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.  Therefore we thinkit is just and proper to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

 

10.    In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of the order.  The complaint against opposite parties 3 to 6 is dismissed

 

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 5thday of September, 2011.

 

         Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                    Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                 LADY MEMBER

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

 

For the complainant : Nil            For the opposite parties:-Nill

 

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Sale Certificate issued by the opposite party No.1

dated 15-11-2007.

 

Ex.A2.       Delivery Certificate dated 13-11-2007.

 

Ex.A3        Photo copy of receipt issued by opposite party No.1 for Rs.21,111/- dated 13-11-2007.

 

Ex.A4                Invoice of opposite party no.1 dated 15-11-2007.

 

Ex.A5                Battery Warranty Card dated 13-11-2007.

 

Ex.A6                Letter of opposite party no.1 to R.T.A., Kurnool

dated 17-12-2007.

 

Ex.A7                Insurance cover note dated 15-11-2007.

 

Ex.A8                Insurance cover note dated 20-11-2007.

 

Ex.A9                Temporary Certificate of Registration dated 15-11-2007.

 

Ex.A10       Form – 20 Application for Registration of Motor Vehicle dated 03-01-2008.

 

Ex.A11       Receipt for payment of cash to R.T.A., Kurnool for Rs.425/-

Dated15-12-2007.

 

Ex.A12       Form F under Motor Vehicle Act.

 

Ex.A13       Office copy of legal notice dated 13-02-2008 along with

postal receipts (4) and acknowledgements (3).

 

Ex.A14       Photo copy of legal notice issued by I.K.F. Finance Limited

Vijayawada dated 16-03-2009.

 

Ex.A15       Letter of I.K.F. Finance Limited Kurnool dated 18-05-2009.

      

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

 

Ex.B1                Motor vehicle cover note.

      

Ex.B2                Photo copy of Commercial Associate Agreement between

                opposite party No.5 and opposite party No.4.

 

Ex.B3                Photo copy of ledger extract of loan account of

complainant.     

 

Ex.B4                Surveyor report of E.Mukund dated 25-04-2011.

      

Ex.B5                Photo copy of Loan application form submitted by the

complainant.

 

Ex.B6                Photo copy of agreement for loan and guarantee along

with schedule.   

 

Ex.B7                Photo copy of AFC statement of complainant

dated 31-03-2010.

 

Ex.B8                Photo copy of Vehicle surrender letter submitted by the

complainant dated 18-05-2009.

 

         Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                    Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                 PRESIDENT                   LADY MEMBER

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of     the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1897 //

 

 

 

 

 

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on               :

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L.]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri.M.Kirshna Reddy, M.Sc, M.Phil.,]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L.,]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.